SynthesisCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2025
Machine Learning-Driven radiomics on 18 F-FDG PET for glioma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of CXCR4 PET Imaging for the Evaluation of Gliomas: A Comprehensive Literature Review.Cancers · 2026Review
- Comparative Insights intoMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026Article
- Bibliometric Mapping of 40 Years of AI in Nursing: Trends, Collaborations, and Research Hotspots Worldwide.Journal of nursing management · 2026Review
- Validation of open-source deep learning segmentation tools for automated glioma volumetry: a narrative review of Dice scores, workflow efficiency, and clinical RANO 2.0 implementation.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMachine learning (ML) applied to radiomics has revolutionized neuro-oncological imaging, yet the diagnostic performance of ML models based specifically on ^18F-FDG PET features in glioma remains poorly characterized.
objectiveTo systematically evaluate and quantitatively synthesize the diagnostic accuracy of ML models trained on ^18F-FDG PET radiomics for glioma classification.
methodsWe conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis registered on OSF ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XJG6P ). PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to January 2025. Studies were included if they applied ML algorithms to ^18F-FDG PET radiomic features for glioma classification and reported at least one performance metric. Data extraction included demographics, imaging protocols, feature types, ML models, and validation design. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models with pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, AUC, F1 score, and precision. Heterogeneity was explored via meta-regression and Galbraith plots.
resultsTwelve studies comprising 2,321 patients were included. Pooled diagnostic metrics were: accuracy 92.6% (95% CI: 91.3-93.9%), AUC 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94-0.95), sensitivity 85.4%, specificity 89.7%, F1 score 0.78, and precision 0.90. Heterogeneity was high across all domains (I² >75%). Meta-regression identified ML model type and validation strategy as partial moderators. Models using CNNs or PET/MRI integration achieved superior performance.
conclusionML models based on ^18F-FDG PET radiomics demonstrate strong and balanced diagnostic performance for glioma classification. However, methodological heterogeneity underscores the need for standardized pipelines, external validation, and transparent reporting before clinical integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.